The IPKat

Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

Another copyright-ful day at the Court of Justice
of the European Union (CJEU)!

This morning the Court issued its decision in Case
C-117/13 Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG [not yet available -- press release here], a
reference for a preliminary ruling from Germany's Bundesgerichtshof, seeking clarification as to the meaning and
scope of relevant exception(s) under
Directive 2001/29/EC (the InfoSoc Directive).

Background

As this blog reported at the time when the case was
refereed, the background proceedings concern unauthorised digitisation of one
book by a university library (the Darmstadt Technical University) to
allow its electronic consultation from the library terminals. Incidentally,
these also allow users to print out on paper or store on a USB stick the
works made available for consultation there.

Back in 2009 the library in question
digitised a history book by Winfried Schulze without obtaining the
authorisation of the copyright owner first, this being the publisher of the book (Ulmer).

A sample of Merpel's own digital library - historic section

The library then made
the digital version available to its users. In this respect, the number of
"digital" readers could not exceed the number of analogue copies [= one] of the book that
were actually available in the library’s collection. However, users of the
digital version could print or save in their devices (such as USB memory
sticks) excerpts from the book or even the book in its entirety. It is not
difficult to imagine that, once the user had saved the work in his/her device,
he/she could access it even from outside the library.

Ulmer was not
particularly happy with the library's arrangements and, following a failed
attempt to offer the university the possibility of purchasing its own ebooks,
it brought proceedings for copyright infringement over unauthorised scanning of
Schulze's book and other works.

Following partial
victory before the Landgericht of Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt District
Court), both parties appealed before the Bundesgerichtshof,
which wondered whether the university could actually rely on the exception
pursuant to Article 52b of the German Copyright Act[this
is the transposition into German law of Article 5(3)(n) of the InfoSoc
Directive], which so states:

"So far as
there are no contractual provisions to the contrary, it shall be permissible to
make published works available from the stocks of publicly accessible
libraries, museums or archives, which neither directly nor indirectly serve
economic or commercial purposes, exclusively on the premises of the relevant
institution at terminals dedicated to the purpose of research and for private
study. In principle, reproduction of a work in excess of the number stocked by
the institution shall not be made simultaneously available at such terminals.
Equitable remuneration shall be paid in consideration of their being made
available. The claim may only be asserted by a collecting society."

Thus, the court
decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the
CJEU:

1. Is use subject to purchase or
licensing terms within the meaning of Article 5(3)(n) of Directive
2001/29/EC where the rightholder offers to conclude with the estab­lishments
referred to therein licensing agreements for the use of works on
appropriate terms?

2. Does Article 5(3)(n) of Directive
2001/29/EC entitle the Member States to confer on the establishments the
right to digitise the works contained in their collections, if
that is necessary in order to make those works available
on terminals?

3. May the rights which the Member
States lay down pursuant to Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC go so
far as to enable users of the terminals to print out on paper or
store on a USB stick the works made available there?

Bert has also tried sleeping on digital books,but he warns you that they are not as good as analogue ones for your back

The AG Opinion

IPKat readers will remember the Opinion[another one not yet available in English!] of Advocate General (AG) Jääskinen on 5 June last [here], in which he stated
that:

A Member State may authorise libraries to
digitise, without the consent of the rightholders, books they hold in
their collection so as to make them available at electronic reading
points;

While the InfoSoc Directive does not allow
Member States to authorise users to save a book digitised by a library
onto a USB stick [among other things,
allowing this would have nothing to do with preserving the effectiveness
of Article 5(3)(n) exception], it does not prevent, in
principle, the book from being printed as a private copy [this means that this activity could be covered by
another exception, ie that for private copying within
Article 5(2)(a) of the InfoSoc Directive];

Even if the rightholder offers a library
the possibility of concluding licencing agreements for the use of
his works on appropriate terms, the library may avail itself of the
exception provided for in favour of dedicated terminals. It is only
when such a contract has already been concluded that the library may
no longer avail itself of the exception;

In any case the InfoSoc Directive permits not
the digitisation of a collection in its entirety, but only the
digitisation of individual works. It is particularly important not to
opt to use dedicated terminals where the sole purpose of doing so is to avoid
the purchase of a sufficient number of physical copies of the
work.

The decision

According to the press release, this morning the CJEU ruled that "Member States may, within certain limits and under certain conditions, including the payment of fair compensation to rightholders, permit users to print out on paper or store on a USB stickthe books digitised by the library."More specifically, the Court held that:

How convenient:Even if you sign here to grant your voice, you will keep your copyright exceptions

Even if the rightholder offers a library the possibility of concluding licencing agreements for the use of their works on appropriate terms, the library may avail itself of the exception provided for in favour of dedicated terminals [this is particularly interesting: contractual override of copyright exceptions has always been a hot (and problematic) issue];

The InfoSoc Directive does not prevent Member States from granting libraries the right [an ancillary right that does not conflict with the three-step test (which is about exceptions and limitations by the way) according to the press release, but of what sort?] to digitise the books from their collections, if it becomes necessary, for the purpose of research or private study, to make those works available to individuals by dedicated terminals;

The right of libraries to communicate, by dedicated terminals, the works they hold in their collections would risk being rendered largely meaningless, or indeed ineffective, if they did not have an ancillary right to digitise the works in question;

However, that right of communication which may be held by publicly accessible libraries cannot permit individuals to print out the works on paper or store them on a USB stick from dedicated terminals. The printing out of a work on paper and its storage on a USB sticks are acts of reproduction, in so far as they aim to create a new copy of the digital copy made available to individuals. Such acts of reproduction are not necessary for communicating the work to users by means of dedicated terminals and are therefore not covered by the right of communication by means of dedicated terminals, particularly since they are made by individuals and not by the library itself;

This said, Member States may, within the limits and conditions set by the directive, provide for an exception or limitation to the exclusive right of reproduction of rightholders and thus permit the users of a library to print the works out on paper or store them on a USB stick from dedicated terminals. For that, it is necessary in particular that fair compensation be paid to the rightholders [really? How about the de minimis rule in Recital 35?].

A more detailed analysis will follow as soon as the judgment becomes available, so stay tuned!UPDATE @ 10:10 -- The judgment is now available here

BREAKING NEWS: CJEU says that libraries may digitise books and make them available at e-reading points, and that licences do not prevent exceptions
Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati
on
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Rating: 5

The IPKat licenses the use of its blog posts under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial Licence.

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.